| Author |
Message
|
| xgary_fch |
 Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:20 am Post subject: Web service Input + Aggregate MQ flow correlation question |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 06 Jan 2013
Posts: 3
|
I have to create a web service at the message broker and within the service I need to call some other web services in parallel. Here is my design.
Flow 1
HTTPInput -> AggregateControl -> MQOutput (x 3) > AggregateRequest (x 3)
Flow 2
MQInput -> Compute Nodes -> MQReply (Message Flow x 3)
Flow 3
MQInput (x3) -> AggregateReply -> Compute Nodes -> HTTPOut
where Flow 1 calls Flow 2, and then Flow 3.
My problem is:
At Flow3, even I was trying to remap the message properites (e.g. the Envelope & replyId information used in Flow1) in Computer nodes, the following error appears.
A message using an incorrect parser (MQROOT) was detected in node
I am really having no clues what to fix and any help / notes are highly recommended. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
Copious use of Trace nodes and user trace usually helps an awful lot in these cases.
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| xgary_fch |
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 06 Jan 2013
Posts: 3
|
thanks for your reply, davies
I think I can figure out the root cause as the message properties with successful web service call will have a WSROOT properties, while I am having a MQROOT properties for message having error.
CORRECT
( ['WSRoot' : 0x389e12d8]
(0x01000000:Name ):Properties = ( ['MQPROPERTYPARSER' : 0x38bbba18]
(0x03000000:NameValue):MessageSet = 'EmsSOAMessage' (CHARACTER)
...
WRONG
( ['MQROOT' : 0x3a445e98]
(0x01000000:Name ):Properties = ( ['MQPROPERTYPARSER' : 0x3a4f2ab8]
(0x03000000:NameValue):MessageSet = NULL
(0x03000000:NameValue):MessageType = NULL
Then I will have another question, can I manually define the proper parser for the message properties as I don't see much example on this topic... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Looking at the differences, expecting it to come from the same deploy...
Did you build the flows with the subflows as inlined checked? 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| xgary_fch |
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 06 Jan 2013
Posts: 3
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
Looking at the differences, expecting it to come from the same deploy...
Did you build the flows with the subflows as inlined checked? |
Yes I am using subflows for the design from the same deploy but they are going with different routes.
Actually I am testing the performance of the message flow with internal sequence call vs parallel call. The message flow in sequence is well tested without problem and it is where the successful message properties is captured.
The deployed message flow is something like this
HTTPInput -> FilterNode ->
Route A (parallel): Flow 1 + 2 + 3 mentioned in my 1st post
Route B (sequence): Flows in flow2 are connected in sequence
(without using aggregation)
(route A & B merged) -> Compute Node** -> HTTPReply
p.s. ** It is where I placed the trace node
I found that an article saying with the use aggregation will change the root parser of the message but I am not sure if it is the cause. (as a fix should be applied on 6.1.0.6 and I am using 6.1.0.10). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Well aggregation has its own tree. The different messages in the aggregation are then part of that tree. Have fun
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
